> Personally I think "any?" and "some?" are aptly named, and that it's the > older "not-any?" and "some" functions that mess things up. >
I can understand the intuition that "not-any?" and "some" are the oddballs, but "Are there any Xs?" and "Are there some Xs?" are true in exactly the same situations. Or to remove the predicate, since that's what "some" and "not-any?" use: "Is there anything in this thing?" and "Is there something in this thing?" are true in the same situations. So if some? is aptly named, then any? is not. (Maybe "anything?" or "something?" would have been better names for some?.) > Maybe if Clojure were being designed from scratch again, we'd have > something like "has" and "not-has?", but it's too late to change common > function names now. > Yeah--too late. As well as some still uncommon ones. Like "any?". :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
